Time to Push Back on Islamists in U.S.

When one considers some of the conventions currently being advanced with religious zeal by the political left, it’s pretty easy to assess them as being manifestly insane. The notion that individuals from other nations who arrive here illegally somehow have a right to remain here even if they’ve committed violent crimes is certainly one example. The notion that individuals from nations that despise America ought not be barred from entry or at least thoroughly vetted is another. When liberals support and defend people who would kill them in a heartbeat, as gay activists and feminists do when they advocate for what they perceive to be the rights of militant Muslims, they illustrate yet another.

Obviously, some who’ve bought into this lunacy are horribly misguided; others are poisonous ideologues who hate this nation. I’ve maintained for a long time that allowing these people to hijack political processes based upon abstract, subverted interpretations of the First Amendment is dangerous folly.

Last month, a landlord in Canada was ordered to pay $12,000 to a Muslim couple who rented an apartment from him, according to the Toronto Sun. Why? While showing the space to potential occupants, the landlord forgot to remove his shoes in an area where the tenants prayed.

It will probably come as no surprise that the landlord happens to be a Christian.

The fine was levied by Canada’s Human Rights Tribunal, the same organization that dispatches spies to Canadian churches to ensure that pastors aren’t quoting Leviticus or something that might similarly have the potential to hurt the feelings of some homosexual somewhere, because that sort of thing – like failing to observe Islamic doctrine in the presence of a Muslim – has been outlawed in Canada as well.

Those of anti-Islamist and pro-Israel sentiments are currently having a field day debating the issue of the City University of New York (CUNY) having made a decision to host Sharia law advocate Linda Sarsour as their 2017 commencement speaker. Sarsour, a singularly repellant individual, is a barefaced anti-Semite who has advocated violence against Jews and non-Jews who resist the inculcation of Islamic doctrine and Sharia law into Western institutions.

While CUNY’s decision to host Sarsour is obviously a step toward instituting Sharia law in America, it is in actuality a furtive effort to further normalize anti-American sensibilities in general. This is the same modus operandi that was employed in Europe and Canada to bring about such things as “hate speech” laws and human rights tribunals. It also bears mentioning that neither CUNY nor Sarsour would have been so bold prior to Barack Hussein Obama having given so much latitude to Islamists during his administration.

It is the intention of our international socialist overlords that their political power (as well as that of various subversive leftist subgroups and Islamists) be sufficiently cemented that by the time Americans realize what’s going on, the only way to reverse the trend will be taking to the streets and slaying our enemies en masse – in other words, civil war. This they desire because they know that most Americans would never countenance such action.

Many parents admonish their grade school-aged children to never strike another child unless they’re struck first. This is preposterous, if for no other reason than the first person struck is often in no condition to strike back. After all, you wouldn’t let someone shoot or stab you first, would you? I taught my children that if they even suspected that another kid was about to hit them, they were to immediately and decisively dispatch that individual, since I would rather pay a visit to the principal’s office than the emergency room any day. For the record, this advice served them very well.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

– First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

Organized, aggressive grass-roots responses to bigots like Sarsour, their benefactors, and sundry subversive activists will be necessary in order to prevent unhappy scenarios such as that involving the Canadian landlord from becoming commonplace in America. A movement, so to speak, involving the same people in the same numbers as those which elected Donald Trump could certainly accomplish this. In so doing, Americans will have to become impervious to the left’s obsequious accusations of racism and the notorious “phobe” suffix. A litmus test for those seeking public office must be instituted among voters; Muslim candidates, those sympathetic to Sharia law or the establishment of protected classes of people in general should be universally excluded from consideration.

Let us be clear; these are not First Amendment issues, because if Congress has made no law addressing them, the free speech argument is wholly specious.

The rationale for a wholesale political disenfranchisement of pro-Sharia and Islamic activists in general is simple, and one I’ve articulated previously: It matters little if there are peaceful Muslims living among us, or peaceful schools of Islam. In an emerging non-native Muslim population, militancy within that population will inevitably manifest. It may take years or decades or a century, but it will definitely occur, and we have 1400 years of hard evidence in the form of Islam’s history to support this fact.